Jamal v. First Student Canada, 2010 HRTO 401

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abdul Jamal

Applicant

-and-

First Student Canada

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: February 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 401

Indexed as: Jamal v. First Student Canada

INTRODUCTION

1On December 2, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 2083, dismissing the Application (the “Decision”). The Tribunal found that the applicant and persons with whom he was associated did not meet the particular definition of “record of offences” under section 10 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and as such the respondent could not be found to have violated section 13(2) of the Code. The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it reconsider its decision. The Rues elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

d) other factors exit that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

3It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states in part:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

4In the Request, the applicant asserts that the Decision was in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public interest. He also asserts that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant submits that: the definition of “record of offences” is given a very specific meaning which limits the scope to only an offence to which a pardon has been granted and has not been revoked or an offence in respect to any provincial enactment; and the Tribunal’s Decision “has been posted on a public website (www.CanLII.org) that is accessible by any person of the public”. Further, the applicant submits that human rights legislation should be given a large and liberal interpretation.

5While I agree human rights legislation should be given a large and liberal interpretation, record of offences is explicitly defined in the Code and, for the reasons provided in the Decision, the applicant’s circumstances do not fall within the parameters of that statutory definition and, notwithstanding the applicant’s arguments, the Tribunal cannot expand that definition. See de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172 at paras. 6 – 10.

6The applicant does not explain how posting the Decision to a public website is a factor that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal decisions. On the material before me, I am not satisfied that any of the conditions listed in Rule 25.5 exist in this case. In view of the above, the Reconsideration Request is denied.